Announcement

**GOLDENGREEK** · 03-17-2008, 01:51 PM

REMEMBER -- CAP EACH GAME INDIVIDUALLY -- USE THE ABOVE ONLY AS A GUIDE

Teams to think about using these stats.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Belmont+19.5
WVU-2
Purdue-2.5
Portland St+25.5
Kent-2
Fullerton St+11.5
USC-2.5
Cornell+16
Miss Valley St+33
SD+11.5
Indiana-1.5
Md Baltimore +18
Davidson-2
Miss St-3
Austin Peay+16.5
Texas Arlington+25
Mia Fla-2
American+19.5
Butler-4.5
Boise St+14
Oklahoma-2
Oral Roberts+10.5

**BigWeiner** · 03-17-2008, 01:52 PM

Good info, those are usually the ones I like anyway, except Memphis is gonna shit on Texas Arlington

**GOLDENGREEK** · 03-17-2008, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by BigWeiner

Good info, those are usually the ones I like anyway, except Memphis is gonna shit on Texas Arlington

BELMONT IS PRETTY BAD ALSO

**BigWeiner** · 03-17-2008, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by GOLDENGREEK

BELMONT IS PRETTY BAD ALSO

There's gonna be a lot of ass kickings handed out

**vinnyvegas** · 03-17-2008, 05:41 PM

BW & GG, AGREE...I'm leaning to some 1st H plays too in those big chalk games!!

Leans...LOL

**GOLDENGREEK** · 03-17-2008, 10:53 PM

Tips for the NCAA Tourney

This year’s NCAA tournament will be the 11th in the ******* college basketball database, thus my annual college tournament article now proudly boasts a full decade of data behind it. In that time, there have certainly been enough games in which to derive some significant patterns of performance.

The purpose of my article each March is to reveal some of those trends in order to help our readers enjoy their own magical betting “run” through the tournament. Typically, this is one of the most anticipated pieces I do, at least if you judge by reader feedback. It seems that the “madness” brings everyone’s college basketball wagering interest to its peak and there is no such thing as information overload at this time of year.

Most people who either bet on the individual games or invest their hard earned dollars in office pools agree on one thing: It pays to do your homework in the days following selection Sunday. In fact, statistics show that those are always three of the most heavy traffic days at *******.com. Visitors are consumed by the thirst for as much stats, trends, and situations as possible for the Big Dance.

Well, for this particular article, you won’t be getting the full ******* March Madness article, but you will be getting a quick summary filled with tips and top trends. If you are interested in the entire piece, be sure to pick up a copy of the ******* College Tournament Handicapping Guide in the store on the site.

Among the things I will deliver in this year’s tournament article are; favorite/underdog results, how the various seeding affects ATS performance, how each conference fares, and even how line & total placement can be important. New for this year, I’ve added a section on which stats are most important in predicting winners, both straight up and against the spread.

Of course, what you’ll see here are merely historical generalities. Most experts will argue that these types of facts and figures provide only for water cooler fodder and that what really matters most when it comes to NCAA tournament action are factors like momentum, matchups and execution. To those folks we oblige the importance of those critical factors, and offer up our FoxSheets for the latest and greatest when it comes to analyzing each game on its own merit. With that said though, ******* has always subscribed to the theory that when it comes to sports handicapping information, the more you know, the better you are!

Enjoy the piece; hopefully it will help deliver you numerous “shining moments” over the next three weeks!

Where do the upsets come from then? What are other key points to remember?

Most fans would agree that the #1 thing that makes the NCAA tournament exciting is the possibility of the upset, the little guy taking down the bully, the Cinderella story, and so on. However, the analysis thus far has proven one thing …that there is no foolproof method for determining where the upsets will come from on a yearly basis. There are some general concepts that have produced successful results in the last several years though, both in terms of bracket contests and wagering.
One key point of note before digging into the key points is that the 2007 NCAA Tournament was highly unusual in that the favorites won and covered the pointspread at previously unseen rates. In fact, 2007 was the first year in the last decade in which more than 80% of better seeded teams won their games outright. It was also the first year when these same teams reached the 60% mark against the pointspread. Here’s a look at those results in more detail:

Year: Better Seed Straight Up Record, ATS Record
1998: 45-18(71.4%) SU, 29-32-1 (47.5%) ATS
1999: 38-23(62.3%) SU, 25-34-2 (42.4%) ATS
2000: 44-19(69.8%) SU, 26-23 (53.1%) ATS
2001: 42-21(66.7%) SU, 33-29-1 (53.2%) ATS
2002: 46-16(74.2%) SU, 30-29-3 (50.8%) ATS
2003: 42-21(66.7%) SU, 25-36-2 (41.0%) ATS
2004: 47-16(74.6%) SU, 36-27 (57.1%) ATS
2005: 43-19(69.4%) SU, 27-35 (43.5%) ATS
2006: 42-21(66.7%) SU, 25-36-2 (41.0%) ATS
2007: 50-12(80.6%) SU, 36-24-2 (60.0%) ATS

There are hundreds of other trends and stats that I go through each year and those can again be found in the ******* College Tournament Handicapping Guide, but for purposes of helping you win this year’s office pool or at the betting window, here are 15 quick tips that I uncovered in my research this year. Make sure to refer to these when projecting your tournament bracket or placing that wager at the betting window.

1) Most often, the upsets come when least expected. If too many experts are projecting an upset, I’ve found it doesn’t happen. Take last year’s tournament for instance. Some of the most popular upset picks were teams George Washington (over Vanderbilt), Long Beach State (over Tennessee), Davidson (vs. Maryland), and Old Dominion (vs. Butler). Not only were those teams beaten, they were beaten soundly, all four by double-digit margins. Meanwhile, overlooked clubs like Virginia Commonwealth and Purdue were two of the four teams that actually won outright as pointspread underdogs. The common thread those teams shared: Taking on a foe that played its best basketball earlier in the season.

2) History says the team facing the Ivy League representative will not be upset, despite the publicity Princeton still receives for having beat Georgetown many years ago. There are five other conferences, including the Sun Belt, that have also failed to win a tournament game since ’98. There are still five more conferences that have only won once in 10 years.

3) The most lethal “mid-major” conferences in terms of upsets have been the Colonial Athletic, Missouri Valley, Mid-American, and Horizon League. These have produced the most “Cinderellas” to reach the Sweet 16 and beyond, each accumulating a winning of at least 39% SU since ’98.

4) Sunday of Round 2 has had the most upsets of any typical day in the tournament schedule. Lower seeds on that day win outright at a 44% rate, and cover the spread 55.0% of the time.

5) More from Round 2, underdogs of 5-points or less are an incredible 39-25 SU & 42-22 ATS, for 65.6%!

6) In the Sweet 16 round, watch for seeds #7, 8, & 9, as these teams are on a nice run of 7-3 SU & ATS.

7) Worse seeds have held a large advantage in the Elite 8 round since 1998, going 26-12-2 ATS (68.4%). Those playing as underdogs of less than 7-points are a startling 12-7 SU & 15-4 ATS (78.9%)!

8) Favorites are the way to go in the Semifinal and Championship games. Since the turn of the century, the “Chalk” is 17-7 SU & 16-8 ATS for 66.7%. Those of 4-6 points on Final Four weekend are a sizzling 16-5 ATS since ’98.

9) Stay away from the Mountain West Conference teams. As good as these teams have looked on paper heading into tournaments; they are only 7-18 SU & 8-14 ATS in the last 10 years.

10) Take note that the ACC has had a tendency to be overrated by oddsmakers. Most of the double-digit lines in recent years have belonged to this league and though the ACC SU win % is still the best, the pointspread win rate is 23% less.

11) In years that the higher seeds won more than 70% of their games, the following season they went on to win less than 70%, in each case dropping at least 5% in win rate. The 2008 tournament could see a return of the Cinderella.

12) Beware of the #10 seed. This team has taken over for the #12 where upsets are concerned. In the second round they are particularly dangerous of late. Overall, the #10 has won over 44% of its games, despite being a lower seed in all but one. In fact, against the #2 seed in the second round, the #10 actually owns a winning record at 10-7 SU & 12-5 ATS.

13) Don’t be afraid to ride the #3, 5, 6, or 8 seeds as they advance deeper into the tournament. While the SU win percentage is just below .500, all four of these spots have produced very well in terms of ATS success.

14) Watch for game totals at 125 or below and bet them to go UNDER. In games with totals set at less than 125 points, the UNDER owns a stellar 30-14 mark, for 68.2%, including 6-1 in 2007.

15) The UNDER in the first round games of the top three seeds is 65-42 (60.7%) since ’98.

**spreadman** · 03-17-2008, 11:00 PM

My tip is to BOOK your friends....

**Chado1** · 03-18-2008, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by GOLDENGREEK

Tips for the NCAA Tourney

This year’s NCAA tournament will be the 11th in the ******* college basketball database, thus my annual college tournament article now proudly boasts a full decade of data behind it. In that time, there have certainly been enough games in which to derive some significant patterns of performance.

The purpose of my article each March is to reveal some of those trends in order to help our readers enjoy their own magical betting “run” through the tournament. Typically, this is one of the most anticipated pieces I do, at least if you judge by reader feedback. It seems that the “madness” brings everyone’s college basketball wagering interest to its peak and there is no such thing as information overload at this time of year.

Most people who either bet on the individual games or invest their hard earned dollars in office pools agree on one thing: It pays to do your homework in the days following selection Sunday. In fact, statistics show that those are always three of the most heavy traffic days at *******.com. Visitors are consumed by the thirst for as much stats, trends, and situations as possible for the Big Dance.

Well, for this particular article, you won’t be getting the full ******* March Madness article, but you will be getting a quick summary filled with tips and top trends. If you are interested in the entire piece, be sure to pick up a copy of the ******* College Tournament Handicapping Guide in the store on the site.

Among the things I will deliver in this year’s tournament article are; favorite/underdog results, how the various seeding affects ATS performance, how each conference fares, and even how line & total placement can be important. New for this year, I’ve added a section on which stats are most important in predicting winners, both straight up and against the spread.

Of course, what you’ll see here are merely historical generalities. Most experts will argue that these types of facts and figures provide only for water cooler fodder and that what really matters most when it comes to NCAA tournament action are factors like momentum, matchups and execution. To those folks we oblige the importance of those critical factors, and offer up our FoxSheets for the latest and greatest when it comes to analyzing each game on its own merit. With that said though, ******* has always subscribed to the theory that when it comes to sports handicapping information, the more you know, the better you are!

Enjoy the piece; hopefully it will help deliver you numerous “shining moments” over the next three weeks!

Where do the upsets come from then? What are other key points to remember?

Most fans would agree that the #1 thing that makes the NCAA tournament exciting is the possibility of the upset, the little guy taking down the bully, the Cinderella story, and so on. However, the analysis thus far has proven one thing …that there is no foolproof method for determining where the upsets will come from on a yearly basis. There are some general concepts that have produced successful results in the last several years though, both in terms of bracket contests and wagering.
One key point of note before digging into the key points is that the 2007 NCAA Tournament was highly unusual in that the favorites won and covered the pointspread at previously unseen rates. In fact, 2007 was the first year in the last decade in which more than 80% of better seeded teams won their games outright. It was also the first year when these same teams reached the 60% mark against the pointspread. Here’s a look at those results in more detail:

Year: Better Seed Straight Up Record, ATS Record
1998: 45-18(71.4%) SU, 29-32-1 (47.5%) ATS
1999: 38-23(62.3%) SU, 25-34-2 (42.4%) ATS
2000: 44-19(69.8%) SU, 26-23 (53.1%) ATS
2001: 42-21(66.7%) SU, 33-29-1 (53.2%) ATS
2002: 46-16(74.2%) SU, 30-29-3 (50.8%) ATS
2003: 42-21(66.7%) SU, 25-36-2 (41.0%) ATS
2004: 47-16(74.6%) SU, 36-27 (57.1%) ATS
2005: 43-19(69.4%) SU, 27-35 (43.5%) ATS
2006: 42-21(66.7%) SU, 25-36-2 (41.0%) ATS
2007: 50-12(80.6%) SU, 36-24-2 (60.0%) ATS

There are hundreds of other trends and stats that I go through each year and those can again be found in the ******* College Tournament Handicapping Guide, but for purposes of helping you win this year’s office pool or at the betting window, here are 15 quick tips that I uncovered in my research this year. Make sure to refer to these when projecting your tournament bracket or placing that wager at the betting window.

1) Most often, the upsets come when least expected. If too many experts are projecting an upset, I’ve found it doesn’t happen. Take last year’s tournament for instance. Some of the most popular upset picks were teams George Washington (over Vanderbilt), Long Beach State (over Tennessee), Davidson (vs. Maryland), and Old Dominion (vs. Butler). Not only were those teams beaten, they were beaten soundly, all four by double-digit margins. Meanwhile, overlooked clubs like Virginia Commonwealth and Purdue were two of the four teams that actually won outright as pointspread underdogs. The common thread those teams shared: Taking on a foe that played its best basketball earlier in the season.

2) History says the team facing the Ivy League representative will not be upset, despite the publicity Princeton still receives for having beat Georgetown many years ago. There are five other conferences, including the Sun Belt, that have also failed to win a tournament game since ’98. There are still five more conferences that have only won once in 10 years.

3) The most lethal “mid-major” conferences in terms of upsets have been the Colonial Athletic, Missouri Valley, Mid-American, and Horizon League. These have produced the most “Cinderellas” to reach the Sweet 16 and beyond, each accumulating a winning of at least 39% SU since ’98.

4) Sunday of Round 2 has had the most upsets of any typical day in the tournament schedule. Lower seeds on that day win outright at a 44% rate, and cover the spread 55.0% of the time.

5) More from Round 2, underdogs of 5-points or less are an incredible 39-25 SU & 42-22 ATS, for 65.6%!

6) In the Sweet 16 round, watch for seeds #7, 8, & 9, as these teams are on a nice run of 7-3 SU & ATS.

7) Worse seeds have held a large advantage in the Elite 8 round since 1998, going 26-12-2 ATS (68.4%). Those playing as underdogs of less than 7-points are a startling 12-7 SU & 15-4 ATS (78.9%)!

8) Favorites are the way to go in the Semifinal and Championship games. Since the turn of the century, the “Chalk” is 17-7 SU & 16-8 ATS for 66.7%. Those of 4-6 points on Final Four weekend are a sizzling 16-5 ATS since ’98.

9) Stay away from the Mountain West Conference teams. As good as these teams have looked on paper heading into tournaments; they are only 7-18 SU & 8-14 ATS in the last 10 years.

10) Take note that the ACC has had a tendency to be overrated by oddsmakers. Most of the double-digit lines in recent years have belonged to this league and though the ACC SU win % is still the best, the pointspread win rate is 23% less.

11) In years that the higher seeds won more than 70% of their games, the following season they went on to win less than 70%, in each case dropping at least 5% in win rate. The 2008 tournament could see a return of the Cinderella.

12) Beware of the #10 seed. This team has taken over for the #12 where upsets are concerned. In the second round they are particularly dangerous of late. Overall, the #10 has won over 44% of its games, despite being a lower seed in all but one. In fact, against the #2 seed in the second round, the #10 actually owns a winning record at 10-7 SU & 12-5 ATS.

13) Don’t be afraid to ride the #3, 5, 6, or 8 seeds as they advance deeper into the tournament. While the SU win percentage is just below .500, all four of these spots have produced very well in terms of ATS success.

14) Watch for game totals at 125 or below and bet them to go UNDER. In games with totals set at less than 125 points, the UNDER owns a stellar 30-14 mark, for 68.2%, including 6-1 in 2007.

15) The UNDER in the first round games of the top three seeds is 65-42 (60.7%) since ’98.

Interesting read Dino...thanks....

Especially like the part about which of the smaller conerences tend to do well and which ones do not..

**GOLDENGREEK** · 03-19-2008, 12:20 AM

This is a copy and paste job

This is not my work -- im saying that because the article speaks in the forst person

Winning NCAA Tournament Angles

In the opening round, it is almost an exact 50% result against the spread (ATS) with a record of 163-158 with four pushes. However, it appears there is a very profitable betting angle wagering on the lined total to go Over or Under (O/U). With the O/U results, we only have nine years of data as there were not lined totals offered back in the first year of our data, 1998. Also, as a point of reference, Las Vegas did not offer odds on UNLV games in the Rebels 1998 and 2000 games in the NCAA Tournament. This changed shortly thereafter and all UNLV games do have point spreads and lined totals.

In the opening round over the past nine years, blindly betting the Under would have given you a sweet profit on a record of 191-132 Under, 59.1% winners!

In Round 2, betting on the lower seed now turns a profit winning 54.4% of the time, 86-72-2 ATS. We still are profitable betting the Under, however we have dropped to a winning rate of 53.5% on a 85-74-1 mark.

Moving on to the Sweet 16, gives us two profitable trends. Again, betting on the lower seed has us winning 43 times out of 75 games, 57.3%. The gravy train betting the Under continues with 61.5% winners, 48-30-2.

The lower seeds are very profitable in the Elite 8 round, 26-12-2, 68.4%. Interestingly enough, our Under meal ticket goes against us for the first time, with the Overs cashing 59.1% of the time, 23-16-1.

The Elite 8 round has a 13-7 mark, 65%, in favor of the higher seed. The Under is back to being profitable with a 7-12-1 OU mark, 63.2%. There were two games with equal seeds playing each other with 1-1 ATS and 1-1 OU records.

The Finals had three occasions with both teams being #1 seeds. Eliminating those results, we are 5-2 ATS betting on the higher seed and 4-3 O/U.

Here is a chart with each round based on the higher seed being the team of record:

The Higher Seed By Round

Round: ATS W-L (%), O-U
Round 1: 163-158 (50.8%), 132-191
Round 2: 72-86 (45.6%), 74-85
Sweet 16: 32-43 (42.7%), 30-48
Elite 8: 12-26 (31.6%), 23-16
Semi-Final: 13-7 (65%), 7-12
Final: 6-4 (60%), 6-4
Total, 298-324 (47.9%), 272-356

From there it is time to drill down and see what else we can uncover. Other ways we want to look at the results are:

* How do teams from smaller conferences do against their larger counter parts?
* What are the results of teams in certain price ranges?
* Are there any tendencies of Totals depending upon the lined number?

A very good way to get a quick look at how certain conferences perform is to group the conferences by perceived general strength. We have four conference ratings: A, B, C, and D. The conferences for each group rating are as follows:

A: ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Big East, SEC, and PAC 10
B: Atlantic 10, Conference USA, Missouri Valley, Mountain West, and the WAC
C: Big Sky, Big West, Colonial, Horizon, Metro Atlantic, Ohio Valley, Sun Belt, West Coast Conference
D: America East, Atlantic Sun, Big South, Ivy League, Mid-Continent (now Summit), Mid-Eastern, Northeastern, Patriot, Southern, Southland, SWAC.

An argument can be made regarding the ratings of the conferences. Perhaps the most compelling would be the West Coast Conference being in the “C” group. Sure, Gonzaga is in the WCC and emerging power St. Mary’s is also. However, our ratings go back ten years. We have to average the entire conference over this extended period of time.

First, let’s look how conferences do against equally rated conferences. The value of taking the lower rated seed when “A” conferences meet each other is evident with the 57.5% ATS rate, 119-88. Playing the Under has a small advantage at 109-98, 52.7%.

There are no discernible advantages when the lower rated conferences meet each other and there really is not a very large result set.

When our highest rated conference group plays a “B” or “C” conference, the results show no edge ATS or O/U. However, when the “A” group goes against the lowest rated squads, they do cover 55.7% of the time, with 54-43. But, the most profitable wager found in comparing conference groups is playing the Under when an “A”, one of the “Big Six”, goes against a regularly non-lined “D” group. You normally don’t find a 70 percent or higher winning blind wager, but that is what you have in this mismatch of talent.

While we don’t have a large result set when the higher seed is the “B” conference group, there are a couple of edges there. The “B” group only covers the spread in 12 of 30 games, a paltry 40% winning ATS rate. The Under is 19-11, a nice 63.3% winning rate when you play it that way.

In examining results by what the line is, there are some opportunities that arise. We are ignoring what round is; only concerned about the point spread and the results. There is nothing exciting about the ATS results when a team is favored by 20+ points, but the O/U is 28-21 in favor of the Under, 57.1%.

Similar results are obtained when a team is favored by 15 to 19.5 points, regardless of the round.

An 18-17 ATS record produces nothing; however a 13-22 O/U mark gives us an edge worth considering.

Tantalizingly good stuff shows up when we take a peek at -9.5 to -14.5 point spreads in the Big Dance. Taking the points gives you a nice winning mark of 58-40, 60.2%. Even more profitable is playing the Under with a 62-37 ticket cashing record. Obviously, the better team is able to shut the weaker underdog down more times than not and not only get the cover but also throttle the other team defensively enough to get the Under.

Moving the favorite into three possession territory and you don’t have anything outstanding, however the favorite did cover 54.5% of the time.

Going into a two possession line range and we have some results that are worth noting. The underdog getting 3.5 to 6 points has a record of 77-63, 55.0%. The Under is more profitable with an 82-61 tally, 57.3%.

Underdogs in a one-possession line, pick’em to +3, win at a 54.3% clip. Definitely not strong enough to look too seriously at but still it is an edge.

I did believe when the higher seed is an underdog to a lower seed, the results would show a significant spread-covering advantage for the disrespected higher seed. I was disappointed when the ten-year scorecard was virtually a 50% wager. However, it is worth remembering when the higher seed is a dog up to three points, the Under cashes 31 out of 49 times, 61.2%.

As someone who enjoys playing totals and firmly believes it is one of the areas in sports betting that has some of the best potential for profits, I thought there might be some eye-opening trends based upon the lined total in an NCAA Tournament game.

I was immediately rewarded with an exceptionally strong winning trend, albeit with a small sample size, with games with a lined total of 160 or higher. Does a 10-1 ATS record for the higher seed make it worth you while to remember this trend? The one loser happened in 1999 and was the only game with a #1 seed playing a #16 seed, Duke squaring off against Florida A&M. Duke was a 46.5 point favorite, which also happens to be the most points given to a team over the past ten years of the NCAA Tournament. Duke missed covering the line by six points.

I was surprised games with totals in the 150’s finished virtually in an exact even O/U. However, the lower seed in such a game did cover the spread 61.0% of the time, 47 out of 77 games.

The Under was a winner with a 55.6% frequency to games lined in the 140’s, while the Over cashed your ticket 55.9% of the time with a total in the 130’s. As we moved down into the 120’s, the Under was 54-40, 57.4%, with the lower seed covering the point spread 55.9% of the time. Below the120 figure saw the Under with a 13-6 record.

If you are wondering if the round of the tournament made any difference regarding the outcome of playing the Over and Under, you will be happy to know that it definitely does!

In the opening round with a lined total in the 140’s, just playing the Under blindly would have given you 64% winners, 55-31. Betting the Over would happen on games with a total in the 130’s in the opening round is not quite as lucrative, but a 60-41 record will keep you coming back for more! A winning rate of 63.6% comes up with the Under when the total is less than 120 in Round 1. Sometimes it pays to do your research!

Although there are only 13 games that fall into this result set, another nice tidbit I uncovered was playing the Under in the Sweet 16 round when the total is in the 120’s gave you a winning record of 10-3.

Are there any opening rounds that have some land mines in them, rounds that have a strong tendency towards one side or the other or to the Over or Under? Yes, and your tireless reporter has uncovered those! How about when the #2 seed plays the #15 seed? Good ol’ #2 has only covered 15 out of 39 times with one push. And, even better, the Under has a superb record of 24-12. (Remember in 1998, there were no posted totals.)

The winning angle on the Under continues with the 3 vs 14 opening round, a tidy 23-13 mark, 63.9%. The Under continues to come in a winner, now at a 60% pace, for the opening round with the #6 and #7 seeds.

The only other sides that showed any distinct advantage was betting on the #3 and #4 seeds in their first games, combing for a 55.7% winning ATS mark.

Ready for even more information, how about the conferences living outside of the Big Six, especially the small conferences, how have they fared? There are a few that show a profit when you are backing them. The Colonial Athletic Association jumps forward with a 13-5 ATS record being led by Virginia Commonwealth, George Mason, and UNC-Wilmington. They have also produced a 12-6 O/U mark.

Excluding play-in games, the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference has only won one NCAA Tournament game straight-up, that memorable one-point Hampton win over Iowa State in 2001. However, they do have a nice 8-2 ATS record coupled with a 2-7 O/U mark the past ten seasons.

I realize most people cannot name a team from the America East Conference, but if you knew they were 3-7ATS the past ten seasons you might learn that Vermont and Albany are conference members.

When a Mountain West team is the lower seed, it pays to bet against them to the tune of 13-6 ATS.

Even though the Ivy League beats everybody in smarts, they don’t with their pocketbook as they are 1-9 ATS and 3-6 O/U since 1998.

Conference USA has not been a money-maker going 27-38 ATS be it the higher or lower seed in a game.

Large conferences that have done well as the lower seed include the Big 12 at 30-20 against the spread, Big East at 28-20, and the SEC at 26-14.

I have supplied a ton of data, a bunch of profitable trends that the casual and sophisticated sports bettor should pay attention to. After all, if you have the edge, you should be able to grind out some profits and make this just as memorable of NCAA Tournament as it was to the Tar Heel Tommy Kearns and the University of North Carolina fans and players over 50 years ago.

**BettorsChat** · 03-19-2008, 12:33 AM

2008 NCAA Tournament - The Slop

If a team has trouble scoring, do you really want to be rooting for it if it's down eight with six minutes to go? Here are the 2008 NCAA Tournament teams that scored less than 68 points per game this year.

Coppin State, 59.8
Mississippi Valley State, 62.7
American, 65.1
Winthrop, 65.6
San Diego, 65.6
Washington State, 67.1
Wisconsin, 67.5

And here are the 2007 NCAA Tournament teams that scored less than 68 a game last year and how they fared. Wisconsin* had its stats masked by an easy non-conference schedule.:

Miami-Ohio, 59.6 - Lost in first round
Southern Illinois, 63.2 - Lost in Sweet 16
Holy Cross, 64.2 - Lost in first round
Illinois, 64.5 - Lost in first round
Wright State, 64.6 - Lost in first round
Michigan State, 65.1 - Lost in second round
Eastern Kentucky, 65.2 - Lost in first round
Washington State, 66.5 - Lost in second round
Creighton, 67.2 - Lost in first round
Wisconsin* - Lost in second round

2008 NCAA Tournament - Road Woes

Why would anyone ever have a team advancing deep into the tournament when it had trouble winning on the road in the regular season? These squads fall very quickly. Here are the 2008 NCAA Tournament teams that couldn't win on the road this year.

Arkansas, 3-7
Kentucky, 4-8 (no road wins vs. winning teams except Georgia, 17-16)
Vanderbilt, 4-6 (no road wins vs. winning teams except Georgia, 17-16)
Michigan State, 4-6
Miami, 4-6
Kansas State, 5-9

The following are the 2007 NCAA Tournament teams that couldn't win on the road last year and how they fared:

Michigan State, 3-10 - Lost in second round
Georgia Tech, 3-9 - Lost in first round
Virginia, 4-8 - Lost in second round
Purdue, 5-10 - Lost in second round
Miami-Ohio, 6-12 - Lost in first round
Indiana, 5-9 - Lost in second round
2008 NCAA Tournament - Aurora Snow Factor

Former NCAA Tournament stars like Shane Battier, Carmelo Anthony and Dwayne Wade delivered when it mattered and always rose up to the occasion. Meanwhile, other players choke like Aurora Snow does for a living. Here are the Chokers from the 2007 NCAA Tournament whom you might want to stay away from this year.

Dante Cunningham, SG, Villanova: Guard Dante Cunningham, one of the top players on the Wildcats' roster, had only four points in a first-round defeat to Michigan State.

Gary Ervin, PG, Arkansas: Starting junior point guard Gary Ervin shot just 3-of-13 from the field, as he was a major reason why Arkansas lost its opening contest to USC.

Dominic James, PG, Marquette: For the second straight year, Marquette was victimized by Dominic James' Aurora Snow tactics, as James, who averaged 14.9 ppg on the season, shot just 5-of-14 from the field, earning his 16 points in junk time when the game was out of hand.

Tory Jackson, PG, Notre Dame: Starting point guard Tory Jackson hit only 3-of-12 field goal attempts in a first-round upset loss to Winthrop.

Trent Johnson, Coach, Stanford: Louisville absolutely demolished Stanford in the first round because the Cardinal was unprepared for the full-court press. As a college coach on the Division-I level, how do you not prepare your team for the press? I was in shock.

2008 NCAA Tournament - Freshmen Point Guards

Do you really want some acne-ridden kid who had problems finding a prom date just a few months ago ruining your bracket? I think not. Freshmen point guards seldom advance deep into the tournament. Here are the 2008 NCAA Tournament Freshmen Point Guards in this year's Big Dance:

Jordan Crawford, Indiana
O.J. Mayo, USC
Derrick Rose, Memphis

And here are the 2007 NCAA Tournament Freshman Point Guards and how they fared last year:

Ty Lawson, North Carolina - Lost in Elite Eight
Javaris Crittenton, Georgia Tech - Lost in first round
Edgar Sosa, Louisville - Lost in second round
Greivis Vasquez, Maryland - Lost in second round
Tory Jackson, Notre Dame - Lost in first round
Scottie Reynolds, Villanova - Lost in first round
Mike Conley Jr., Ohio State - Lost in 2007 NCAA Championship
D.J. Augustin, Texas - Lost in second round
Stephen Curry, Davidson - Lost in first round
Ramar Smith, Tennessee - Lost in Sweet 16

2008 NCAA Tournament - The "Experts"

The so-called "experts" on ESPN and CBS know nothing. As you'll see below, they're wrong more often than not. Also, the players listen to these shows. If someone like Dick Vitale bad-mouths a program, that team will usually respond with a victory. There always seems to be one disrespected school that goes to the Sweet 16. Here are some of the more Controversial Comments made on Selection Sunday:

CBS Bold Predictions:

Seth says Notre Dame will go to Sweet 16.

Seth says No. 4 seed Vanderbilt will lose to Siena in the first round.

Seth says No. 10 Davidson has a great chance to make the Sweet 16.

Kellogg says Memphis is going to the Final Four.

Kellogg likes No. 6 Marquette to go deep.

Seth says No. 12 Temple will beat No. 5 Michigan State.

Seth says Drake will go to the Sweet 16.

Kellogg likes No. 7 West Virginia to go deep.

ESPN Bold Predictions:

Dicky V, Digger and Bilas have no respect for Baylor.

Dicky V picks No. 11 Kentucky over No. 6 Marquette.

Dicky V picks No. 14 Georgia over No. 3 Xavier.

Dicky V says No. 6 USC will beat No. 3 Wisconsin in the second round.

Below are some of the more Controversial Comments made on Selection Sunday in 2007:

Gottlieb no respect for Vanderbilt. - WRONG: Vanderbilt advanced to Sweet 16

Digger and Seth call Old Dominion over Butler. - WRONG: Butler beats ODU by 11 and eventually advances to Sweet 16

Bilas calls GT over UNLV. - WRONG: UNLV beats Georgia Tech and eventually advances to Sweet 16

Seth calls Oral Roberts over Washington State. - WRONG: WSU beats Oral Roberts by 16

Dicky V says Duke to 16. - WRONG: Duke loses in first round

Bilas, Dicky V no respect for Xavier. - WRONG: Almost beat Ohio St. in second round (OSU last-second three to force OT)

Digger, Dicky V, Gottlieb no respect for Arkansas. - RIGHT: Arkansas lost in first round

Hubert no respect for Illinois. - RIGHT: Illinois lost in first round

2008 NCAA Tournament - Random Facts

Here are some of the things you should know about the tournament.

First-round NCAA Tournament Trends:

No. 8 seeds are 14-10 vs. No. 9 seeds since 2002.
No. 7 seeds are 17-7 vs. No. 10 seeds since 2002.
No. 6 seeds are 17-7 vs. No. 11 seeds since 2002.
No. 5 seeds are 15-9 vs. No. 12 seeds since 2002 (6-2 last two years).
No. 4 seeds are 20-4 vs. No. 13 seeds since 2002.
No. 3 seeds are 22-2 vs. No. 14 seeds since 2002.
No. 2 seeds have lost to No. 15 seeds just twice in NCAA Tournament history.
No No. 1 seed has ever lost to a No. 16 seed.

Second-round NCAA Tournament Trends:

Of the 24 No. 1 seeds since 2002, 21 have advanced to the Sweet 16.
Of the 24 No. 2 seeds since 2002, 14 have advanced to the Sweet 16.
Of the 24 No. 3 seeds since 2002, 14 have advanced to the Sweet 16.
Of the 24 No. 4 seeds since 2002, 8 have advanced to the Sweet 16.
Of the 24 No. 5 seeds since 2002, 12 have advanced to the Sweet 16.
Of the 24 No. 6 seeds since 2002, 8 have advanced to the Sweet 16.
Of the 24 No. 7 seeds since 2002, 6 have advanced to the Sweet 16.
Of the 24 No. 8 seeds since 2002, 2 have advanced to the Sweet 16.
Of the 24 No. 9 seeds since 2002, 1 has advanced to the Sweet 16.
Of the 24 No. 10 seeds since 2002, 4 have advanced to the Sweet 16.
Of the 24 No. 11 seeds since 2002, 2 have advanced to the Sweet 16.
Of the 24 No. 12 seeds since 2002, 3 have advanced to the Sweet 16.
Of the 24 No. 13 seeds since 2002, 1 has advanced to the Sweet 16.
Of the 24 No. 14 (and 15-16) seeds since 2002, 0 have advanced to the Sweet 16.
All four No. 1 seeds have advanced to the Sweet Sixteen 7 times in last 11 years.
Amazingly, No. 6 seeds have beaten No. 3 seeds 57.1 percent of the time since 1996.

Sweet 16 NCAA Tournament Trends:

Of the 24 No. 1 seeds since 2002, 15 have advanced to the Elite Eight.
Of the 24 No. 2 seeds since 2002, 12 have advanced to the Elite Eight.
Of the 24 No. 3 seeds since 2002, 5 have advanced to the Elite Eight.
Of the 24 No. 4 seeds since 2002, 3 have advanced to the Elite Eight.
Of the 24 No. 5 seeds since 2002, 2 have advanced to the Elite Eight.
Of the 24 No. 6 seeds since 2002, 1 has advanced to the Elite Eight.
Of the 24 No. 7 seeds since 2002, 2 have advanced to the Elite Eight.
Of the 24 No. 8 seeds since 2002, 1 has advanced to the Elite Eight.
Of the 24 No. 9 seeds since 2002, 0 have advanced to the Elite Eight.
Of the 24 No. 10 seeds since 2002, 1 has advanced to the Elite Eight.
Of the 24 No. 11 seeds since 2002, 1 has advanced to the Elite Eight.
Of the 24 No. 12 seeds since 2002, 1 has advanced to the Elite Eight.
Of the 24 No. 13 seeds (and 14-16) since 2002, 0 have advanced to the Elite Eight.
All four No. 1 seeds have advanced to the Elite Eight just three times since 1996.

Final Four NCAA Tournament Trends:

Of the 24 No. 1 seeds since 2002, 8 have advanced to the Final Four.
Of the 24 No. 2 seeds since 2002, 7 have advanced to the Final Four.
Of the 24 No. 3 seeds since 2002, 4 have advanced to the Final Four.
Of the 24 No. 4 seeds since 2002, 2 have advanced to the Final Four.
Of the 24 No. 5 seeds since 2002, 2 have advanced to the Final Four.
Only one seed lower than No. 6 (George Mason) has advanced to the Final Four since 2002.
All four No. 1 seeds have never reached the Final Four since 1996.
Only once has no No. 1 seed reached the Final Four (2006) since 1996.

NCAA Championship Trends:

Of the 24 No. 1 seeds since 2002, 5 have advanced to the NCAA Championship.
Of the 24 No. 2 seeds since 2002, 3 have advanced to the NCAA Championship.
Of the 24 No. 3 seeds since 2002, 3 have advanced to the NCAA Championship.
Of the 24 No. 4 seeds since 2002, 0 have advanced to the NCAA Championship.
Of the 24 No. 5 seeds since 2002, 1 has advanced to the NCAA Championship.
No seed No. 6 or lower has advanced to the NCAA Championship since 1996.
A No. 1 seed has appeared in the NCAA Championship 7 out of the last 11 years.

**BettorsChat** · 03-19-2008, 12:33 AM

Cinderellas

With the 2008 NCAA Tournament Bracket announced last night, every sports fan is trying to figure out who will be this year`s Cinderella squad? The biggest Cinderella of all was George Mason in 2006 when they went to the Final Four, so we ask the question: Who will be this year`s George Mason? Here are a list of possibilities:

1) #13 Siena (22-10) - The Saints are the champions of the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference and take on #4 seed Vanderbilt of the SEC in the 1st round as part of the Midwest Region. The Saints are a dangerous team because of their suffocating pressure defense and their ability to shoot from the outside. Senior Tay Fiser, juniors Kenny Hasbrouck and Josh Duell and sophomore Edwin Ubiles all can shoot the 3-pointer well and forward Alex Franklin can dominate in the paint. For a young Mid-Major team, they play with a lot of poise and will not be scared of Vandy come Friday. Look for a potential upset here.

2) #12 Temple (21-12) - The champions of the Atlantic 10 Conference finished the season strong winning 7 straight games. They take on the #5 seed in the South, the Michigan State Spartans, in the 1st round. The Owls have a balanced attack with lethal guard Dionte Christmas, guard/forward Mark Tyndale and point guard Chris Clark. The Owls have 7-foot center Sergio Olmos to clog up the middle. The Spartans of Michigan State need to come well-prepared to this one or they will be another victim of the annual 5-12 upset.

3) #10 Davidson (26-6) - The Davidson Wildcats ran through the Southern Conference going 20-0 in conference play in the regular season. And although the Wildcats did not have any big non-conference wins, they played North Carolina, Duke and UCLA all very tough. Davidson plays #7 seed Gonzaga in the 1st round, with the Zags being another potential Cinderella. But I have to like the Davidson Wildcats and sharp-shooting Stephen Curry, who averages 25 points per game this year.

4) #5 Drake (28-4) - The Drake Bulldogs of the Missouri Valley Conference had a terrific season. They were awarded with a #5 seed in the West region and take on a tough Mid-Major team in Western Kentucky. So why would Drake be considered a Cinderella if they are a #5 seed? Probably because no one is picking them to get past the Sweet 16. But these guys are for real and I would not be surprised at all if they made a Final Four run like George Mason in 2006. Led by point guard Adam Emmenecker, who has been deemed as the Mid-Major`s version of Steve Nash. Josh Young leads the team in scoring and Klayton Korver (Kyle`s little brother) is deadly from 3-point range.

OTHER POTENTIAL CINDERELLAS:

#10 Saint Mary`s (25-6)
#10 South Alabama (26-6)
#12 George Mason (23-10)
#12 Western Kentucky (27-6)
#13 San Diego (21-13)

**BettorsChat** · 03-19-2008, 12:33 AM

Recent NCAA tournament Favorite/Underdog ATS trends:
- Favorites are just 295-323-13 ATS (47.7%) since ’98 in the
NCAA’s.
- Favorites in the 2007 tournament were 35-27-2 ATS, for 56.5%,
well above pace!
- Double-digit favorites are 81-89-2 ATS (47.6%), but 8-4 ATS
(66.7%) last year.
- Favorites of 3 points or less are just 94-83 SU & 82-92 ATS
(47.1%) in the last 10 years.
These numbers all seem fairly generic, but one thing you can
take from this exhibit is the concept of playing money lines when
projecting an underdog of 3-points or less to cover the spread,
since only one of every 14.8 games in this range winds up with
the outright winner not beating the spread as well. This leaves
bookmakers susceptible to savvy players who choose to the
money line route with underdogs.
Totals
Oddsmakers seem to have an excellent handle on total
placement, as of the 572 NCAA tourney games that had results
on the total, 272 went OVER and 300 went UNDER, a conversion
rate of 47.5% on the OVER. The tournament is a haven for public
bettors, and most of these “squares” love to play favorites and
over’s. The only significant discernible trend that can be pointed
to on a consistent basis as successful is the fact that in
games
with totals set at less than 125 points, the UNDER owns a
stellar 30-14 mark, for 68.2%, including 6-1 in 2007. Basically,
the lower scoring the game appears to be on paper, the better the
chance that it will be.

Seed Records
The following are the ATS records by seed. Keep in mind that
a handful of times, a #1 seed played another #1 seed, or a #2
played a #2, etc, and in those games, no record is collected. For
those who’ve saved past editions of this article, you’ll see that the
number of various seeds still winning at better than 60% ATS has
dropped to four. Also, as the graph illustrates, it’s nearly a perfect
slope downward in terms of each seed’s winning percentage.
Another point validating the importance of the seed #’s and the
job that the tournament committee had to do each March.

**BettorsChat** · 03-19-2008, 12:34 AM

Seed Matchup Results
#1 vs. #16:
The #1 seed is 40-0 SU & 21-19 ATS. 18 of 35 totaled
games went UNDER. However, all four 1-16 games went OVER
the total in ’07.

#2 vs. #15:
#2 seeds are 39-1 SU but just 15-24 ATS. 24 of 36
totaled games went UNDER.

#3 vs. #14:
This matchup is dominated by the #3 seed. (36-4 SU
& 22-18 ATS) OVER/UNDER is 13/23.

#4 vs. #13:
The #4 seed is 32-8 SU & 22-17-1 ATS vs. the #13.
The OVER/UNDER ratio is 18/17.

#5 vs. #12:
5th seeds are 26-14 SU & but 19-20 ATS vs. the
#12’s. The OVER is 21-14 in the series.

#6 vs. #11:
#6 seeds have done fairly well, going 27-13 SU &
21-19 ATS. 20 of the 33 games went UNDER.

#7 vs. #10:
The #7 seed is 22-18 SU & 22-17 ATS in this matchup,
sweeping the action in ‘07. The UNDER is 23-13!

#8 vs. #9:
The 8-9 series has been the tightest overall, even SU
at 20-20. The #9 leads 21-17 ATS. Three of the four #9 seeds
won in 2007. O/U ratio is 18/17.

Second Round
Overall results point to Round Two as the most likely “upset”
round. These are the two days where the Cinderellas really shine.
In fact, judging by the trend below, Sunday of opening weekend
could be renamed “Upset Sunday”. See if any of these trends can
help you in your second round wagering:
General Trends
- The rate of straight up wins by the better seeds is 18.1% less
in the second round than the combined rest of the rounds.
(63.8%-81.9%). The better seeds are just 102-58 SU & 72-86
ATS.
- Back to the subject of Sunday vs. Saturday of opening weekend,
35 of the 58 lower seed wins happen on Sunday. In fact, the worse
seeds own a straight up record of 35-45 SU, or 43.8%. They are
also 44-36 ATS, 55.0%.
- The second round, in general, has been a higher scoring round.
74 of 143 (51.7%) totaled games have gone OVER the total, and
they have produced 142.4 PPG. West Virginia’s 111-105 win over
Wake Forest in Round Two of 2006 is the tournament’s highest
scoring game of the last 10 years.
Line placement
- Double-digit favorites in the second round are 28-2 SU & 18-12
ATS (60.0%)
- Underdogs of 5 points or less in Round Two are an incredible
39-25 SU & 42-22 ATS (65.6%)!!!
Seeding Patterns
- The #1, #2, & #3 seeds have a combined record of only 52-62
ATS (45.6%) in the second round.
- The #2 seed’s performance is particularly troubling when facing
the #10 seed: 7-10 SU & 5-12 ATS, as opposed to 14-8 SU &
12-10 ATS vs. the #7.
- The #4 seed has had trouble escaping Round Two as well,
going 15-16 SU & 11-20 ATS (35.5%).
- The #6 seed owns a 16-12 SU & 17-10-1 ATS (62.9%) record
in the second round.
- Still, the #10 & #8 seeds own the best ATS records in this round,
with the #10 going 13-5 ATS and the #8 13-7 ATS.

18-7
SU but just 55-66 ATS since ’98.
- The greatest frequency of upsets occurs with games in the line
range of -3.5 to -6.5. In those cases, the favorites are 43-29 SU
(59.7%) & 34-38 ATS, success rates well below the tournament
average. In fact, favorites of 3-points or less are 48-32 SU for
60.0%, a better record despite the smaller spreads.
Here’s a look at the series stats between certain seed #’s.
Seed Matchup Results
#1 vs. #16:
The #1 seed is 40-0 SU & 21-19 ATS. 18 of 35 totaled
games went UNDER. However, all four 1-16 games went OVER
the total in ’07.

#2 vs. #15:
#2 seeds are 39-1 SU but just 15-24 ATS. 24 of 36
totaled games went UNDER.

#3 vs. #14:
This matchup is dominated by the #3 seed. (36-4 SU
& 22-18 ATS) OVER/UNDER is 13/23.

#4 vs. #13:
The #4 seed is 32-8 SU & 22-17-1 ATS vs. the #13.
The OVER/UNDER ratio is 18/17.

#5 vs. #12:
5th seeds are 26-14 SU & but 19-20 ATS vs. the
#12’s. The OVER is 21-14 in the series.

#6 vs. #11:
#6 seeds have done fairly well, going 27-13 SU &
21-19 ATS. 20 of the 33 games went UNDER.

#7 vs. #10:
The #7 seed is 22-18 SU & 22-17 ATS in this matchup,
sweeping the action in ‘07. The UNDER is 23-13!

#8 vs. #9:
The 8-9 series has been the tightest overall, even SU
at 20-20. The #9 leads 21-17 ATS. Three of the four #9 seeds
won in 2007. O/U ratio is 18/17.

Second Round
Overall results point to Round Two as the most likely “upset”
round. These are the two days where the Cinderellas really shine.
In fact, judging by the trend below, Sunday of opening weekend
could be renamed “Upset Sunday”. See if any of these trends can
help you in your second round wagering:
General Trends
- The rate of straight up wins by the better seeds is 18.1% less
in the second round than the combined rest of the rounds.
(63.8%-81.9%). The better seeds are just 102-58 SU & 72-86
ATS.
- Back to the subject of Sunday vs. Saturday of opening weekend,
35 of the 58 lower seed wins happen on Sunday. In fact, the worse
seeds own a straight up record of 35-45 SU, or 43.8%. They are
also 44-36 ATS, 55.0%.
- The second round, in general, has been a higher scoring round.
74 of 143 (51.7%) totaled games have gone OVER the total, and
they have produced 142.4 PPG. West Virginia’s 111-105 win over
Wake Forest in Round Two of 2006 is the tournament’s highest
scoring game of the last 10 years.
Line placement
- Double-digit favorites in the second round are 28-2 SU & 18-12
ATS (60.0%)
- Underdogs of 5 points or less in Round Two are an incredible
39-25 SU & 42-22 ATS (65.6%)!!!
Seeding Patterns
- The #1, #2, & #3 seeds have a combined record of only 52-62
ATS (45.6%) in the second round.
- The #2 seed’s performance is particularly troubling when facing
the #10 seed: 7-10 SU & 5-12 ATS, as opposed to 14-8 SU &
12-10 ATS vs. the #7.
- The #4 seed has had trouble escaping Round Two as well,
going 15-16 SU & 11-20 ATS (35.5%).
- The #6 seed owns a 16-12 SU & 17-10-1 ATS (62.9%) record
in the second round.
- Still, the #10 & #8 seeds own the best ATS records in this round,
with the #10 going 13-5 ATS and the #8 13-7 ATS.
Sweet 16 Round
I’ve coined the Sweet 16 round the one where the underdogs give
it the ole’ college try but come up short, as there is a 21-game
1 81%
2 71%
3 68%
4 57%
5 56%
6 55%
7 46%
8 44%
9 34%
10 44%
11 33%
12 33%
13 22%
14 9%
15 2%
16 0%
Winning Percentage by Seed # in NCAA Tournament ('98-'07)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Seed Number
SU Winning Pct.
Conference SU W-L (%) ATS W-L (%) SU W-L (%) ATS W-L (%) SU W-L (%) ATS W-L (%)
ACC
83-27 (75%) 46-57 (45%) 11-17 (39%) 12-15 (44%) 94-44 (68%) 58-72 (45%)

America East
0-0 (n/a) 0-0 (n/a) 1-10 (9%) 3-7 (30%) 1-10 (9%) 3-7 (30%)

Atlantic 10
12-8 (60%) 7-12 (37%) 9-19 (32%) 15-11 (58%) 21-27 (44%) 22-23 (49%)

Atlantic Sun
0-0 (n/a) 0-0 (n/a) 0-6 (0%) 4-2 (67%) 0-6 (0%) 4-2 (67%)

Big 12
58-26 (69%) 42-40 (51%) 13-25 (34%) 22-16 (58%) 71-51 (58%) 64-56 (53%)

Big East
64-24 (73%) 40-46 (47%) 21-30 (41%) 28-20 (58%) 85-54 (61%) 68-66 (51%)

Big Sky
0-0 (n/a) 0-0 (n/a) 2-10 (17%) 6-6 (50%) 2-10 (17%) 6-6 (50%)

Big South
0-1 (0%) 0-1 (0%) 1-9 (10%) 4-5 (44%) 1-10 (9%) 4-6 (40%)

Big Ten
69-24 (74%) 52-38 (58%) 20-30 (40%) 28-22 (56%) 89-54 (62%) 80-60 (57%)

Big West
1-0 (100%) 1-0 (100%) 2-11 (15%) 5-8 (38%) 3-11 (21%) 6-8 (43%)

Colonial Athletic
0-0 (n/a) 0-0 (n/a) 7-12 (37%) 12-5 (63%) 7-12 (37%) 12-5 (63%)

Conf USA
24-14 (63%) 18-21 (46%) 8-19 (29%) 10-17 (37%) 32-33 (49%) 28-38 (42%)

Horizon/MCC
1-0 (100%) 1-0 (100%) 9-14 (39%) 13-10 (57%) 10-14 (42%) 14-10 (58%)

Ivy League
1-0 (100%) 0-0 (n/a) 0-10 (0%) 1-9 (10%) 1-10 (9%) 1-9 (10%)

Metro Atlantic
0-0 (n/a) 0-0 (n/a) 2-10 (17%) 5-7 (42%) 2-10 (17%) 5-7 (42%)

Mid-American
0-0 (n/a) 0-0 (n/a) 8-12 (40%) 11-9 (55%) 8-12 (40%) 11-9 (55%)

Mid-Continent
0-0 (n/a) 0-0 (n/a) 3-10 (23%) 5-8 (38%) 3-10 (23%) 5-8 (38%)

Mid-Eastern
1-0 (100%) 1-0 (100%) 1-9 (10%) 8-2 (80%) 2-9 (18%) 9-2 (82%)

Missouri Valley
4-2 (67%) 4-2 (67%) 11-21 (34%) 18-14 (56%) 15-23 (39%) 22-16 (58%)

Moutain West
3-1 (75%) 2-1 (67%) 4-17 (19%) 6-13 (31%) 7-18 (28%) 8-14 (36%)

Northeast
1-0 (100%) 1-0 (100%) 0-10 (0%) 5-5 (50%) 1-10 (9%) 6-5 (55%)

Ohio Valley
0-0 (n/a) 0-0 (n/a) 0-10 (0%) 4-6 (40%) 0-10 (0%) 4-6 (40%)

Pac 10
53-23 (70%) 34-41 (45%) 15-22 (41%) 20-16 (56%) 68-45 (60%) 54-57 (49%)

Patriot
0-0 (n/a) 0-0 (n/a) 2-10 (17%) 5-7 (42%) 2-10 (17%) 5-7 (42%)

SEC
62-31 (67%) 40-51 (44%) 18-23 (44%) 26-15 (63%) 80-54 (60%) 66-66 (50%)

Southern
0-1 (0%) 0-1 (0%) 1-13 (7%) 7-7 (50%) 1-14 (7%) 7-8 (47%)

Southland
0-0 (n/a) 0-0 (n/a) 2-10 (17%) 5-6 (45%) 2-10 (17%) 5-6 (45%)

Sun Belt
0-0 (n/a) 0-0 (n/a) 0-10 (0%) 4-6 (40%) 0-10 (0%) 4-6 (40%)

SWAC
0-0 (n/a) 0-0 (n/a) 0-7 (0%) 3-4 (43%) 0-7 (0%) 3-4 (43%)

WAC
7-5 (58%) 5-6 (45%) 12-17 (41%) 15-13 (54%) 19-22 (46%) 20-19 (51%)

West Coast
5-3 (63%) 3-5 (38%) 8-11 (42%) 10-8 (56%) 13-14 (48%) 13-13 (50%)

NCAA Tournament Records by Conference (since '98)
Playing as Higher Seed Playing as Lower Seed Total
T
en Years of Tournament Trends , Tips & Tidbits : Facts by Round , Seed , Conference and more - by Ste ve Makinen

48
******* COLLEGE BASKETBALL TOURNAMENT HANDICAPPING GUIDE

difference between the SU & ATS records of the underdogs and
a 25-game difference for the better seeds here. Check out these
and some other interesting trends from recent Sweet 16 action:
- Better seeds own a 57-23 SU record but are just 32-43-5 ATS
(42.7%) in the Sweet 16 round. All eight better seeds advanced
to the Elite 8 round in 2007.
- Similarly, favorites are 59-21 SU, the second highest SU winning
percentage of any round (73.7%).
- Only one favorite of more than 7-points has lost outright it this
round in the last nine years, (’02 Duke). However, these big faves
are only 13-14 ATS (48.2%).
- Seeds #7, 8, & 9 that reach the Sweet 16 are an impressive 7-3
SU & ATS.
- Seeds #10- #13 who have reached this round are just 5-17 SU
but 11-11 ATS.
- Interestingly, the #8 seed has won straight up in all four
appearances in the Sweet 16, the latest being when Alabama
beat Syracuse in 2004.
- The #4 seed has done dreadfully in this round, going just 4-12
SU & 8-8 ATS.
- Overall, totals in this round are 30 OVER, 40 UNDER.
Additionally, in games with totals below 129, the results are
1 OVERS-11 UNDERS (91.6%).
Elite 8 Round
The average margin of victory in the Elite 8 round is 8.98 PPG,
surprisingly high considering the quality of both teams that
typically reach this point. In addition, the Elite 8 round has also
produced some higher scoring games, with the total average
points per game of 149.2 being the highest on any round, with
23 of the 35 totaled games going OVER. Here are some other
quick tidbits:
- 28 of the 40 games in the round have involved #1 seeds. They
are just 15-13 SU and 9-17-2 ATS (34.6%).
- The #3 seeds own a 5-3 SU & 6-2 ATS mark when matched
against #1’s but just 2-2 SU & 1-3 ATS otherwise.
- #5 and #8 seeds have combined for a 5-2 SU & 6-1 ATS record
in Elite 8 action. In all but one of those games they were the
underdog.
- The only one of the eight favorites of more than 8.5-points to lose
straight up was Arizona in ’98, who lost to Utah by 25 points!
- The ACC & Big Ten have made the most of their Elite 8
opportunities. The ACC is 9-2 SU & 5-5-1 ATS, while the Big Ten
is 9-4 SU & 8-4-1 ATS since ’98. On the opposite end, the Atlantic
10 is still looking for its first win against five defeats.
- Worse seeds have held a large advantage in this round since
1998, going 26-12-2 ATS (68.4%).
Those playing as underdogs
of less than 7-points are a startling 12-7 SU & 15-4 ATS
(78.9%)!

- Concerning totals, in games with posted numbers of 145 or less,
the OVER has been spectacular, going 18-6-1, a conversion rate
of 75.0%. It obvious that teams have to score to advance past
this round.
- For those looking for a nice parlay in the Elite Eight round, take
note that in the 10 games that the favorite has covered in this
round, the OVER is 10-1-1 (90.9%).
Final Four/Championship Rounds
Because each year has just two final four round games and a
single championship game, I like to expand my analysis of the
entire Final Four weekend as a whole by looking at all three
games combined, plus going back a few more years, to 1987. Not
coincidentally, that is the first year the 3-point shot was in play.
Here are some patterns that have formed in the tournament final
three games.
Overall Favorite/Underdog Results
Since 1987, there have been 63 final four games played, and
the favorites have won 41 of them outright. Amazingly, the ATS
results are split nearly right down the middle, 32 favorite, 31
underdog. However, since the turn of the century, the “Chalk” is
17-7 SU & 16-8 ATS for 66.7%. In the championship game alone,
the favorites hold a bigger edge overall, having won 13 of 21 ATS
while boasting a 17-4 straight up mark (80.9%). Syracuse was
the last underdog to win SU & ATS in the final, beating favored
Kansas 81-78 as a 5-1/2 point dog in the 2003 final.
Since ’98, in Final Four games where seed #’s are not equal, the
better seed owns a 17-8 SU & ATS mark, for 68.0%.
Here’s some other strong Final Four trend info.
Line Placement
With a near 50% split in ATS results, you have to dig deeper for
more successful trends. Take a look at some of these records
based on the line placement:
- Favorites of 6-1/2 points or more are a mere 9-7 SU & 3-13
ATS!!!
- Favorites of 4-6 points are 16-5 SU & ATS!!!
- Favorites of less than 4 points are 16-11 SU & 13-14 ATS.
Seed Records
Does a team’s seed help determine anything about potential
wagers on final four weekend? Unfortunately, only slightly: the
#3, 4 & 5 seeds have been somewhat predictable. Check out the
records of the seeds since ’87:
Seed # ATS ATS % SU
#1’s: 27-23 54.0% 32-21
#2’s: 11-17 39.3% 12-16
#3’s: 13-7 65.0% 11-9
#4’s: 4-7 36.4% 3-8
#5’s: 2-4 33.3% 2-4
#6’s: 3-2 60.0% 3-2
#8’s or worse: 0-3 0.0% 0-3
The #3 seed has been the most reliable performing team when
it makes it this deep into the tournament, including the 2006
Florida team that went 2-0 SU & ATS en route to the title. Still, the
Gators became only the third #3 seed to win a Championship.
Michigan in ’89 and Syracuse in ’03 were the others. Digging a
bit deeper into some other trends reveals that any #1 seed that is
an underdog has performed at a 10-3 ATS clip. Note that all four
teams in 2007 were either #1 or #2 seeds.
Conference Records
Do any particular conferences enjoy more success at the final
four than others? You’ll see from the following that the Big East
and Pac 10 seem to thrive at the final four, although both of those
conferences’ representatives lost in the semifinals in ’07. The Big
12 has enjoyed about as much success as the combined nonpower
conferences. Check out the conference records:
Conference ATS ATS % SU
ACC: 16-14 53.3% 16-14
Big 12: 5-9 35.7% 5-9
Big East: 11-3 78.6% 9-5
Big Ten: 10-13 43.4% 11-12
Pac 10: 7-5 58.3% 6-6
SEC: 10-11 47.6% 13-9
Non-Power: 4-7 36.4% 3-8
Totals
In general, the OVER/UNDER Totals posted for the final four
games are higher than most you would see in the regular season.
The reason? As CBS announcer Clark Kellogg put it, you have
to be able to put the ball in the basket to make it deep into the
tournament. Last year’s games produced two of three OVER
plays but in all, there have been 36 UNDERS, 26 OVERS, and 1
PUSH since ‘87.

**BackDoorCvr** · 03-19-2008, 01:14 AM

Good stuff. Thanks guys.

Announcement

INTERESTING STATS for Round 1 (2004-2007)

INTERESTING STATS for Round 1 (2004-2007)

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment